Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Meta Ads MCP

Meta Ads MCP

by AbnerZx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

audiences_update_saved

Update a saved audience's name, description, or targeting in Meta Ads. Adjust existing audience settings without creating a new one.

Instructions

Update a saved audience's name/description/targeting.

KNOWN LIMITATION: see audiences_create_saved — usually fails with code=3 unless the App has Advanced Access. Workaround: audiences_apply_to_adset().

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "saved_audience_id": "<saved_audience_id>"
    },
    "name": "audiences_update_saved"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
confirmNo
targetingNo
descriptionNo
saved_audience_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool usually fails with code=3 unless the App has Advanced Access, which is critical context, and suggests a workaround. It does not detail success responses, side effects, or other prerequisites, so transparency is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds a critical limitation and workaround. No redundant wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and a major failure mode, but lacks detailed parameter semantics and behavior on success/failure. It is useful but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions name, description, and targeting as updatable fields, but leaves 'confirm' completely unexplained and doesn't clarify the nature of saved_audience_id beyond naming. This is insufficient for all five parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a saved audience') with specific fields (name/description/targeting). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audiences_create_saved and audiences_delete_saved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a KNOWN LIMITATION and a workaround using audiences_apply_to_adset(), giving useful contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives beyond the limitation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools